Why the Bayonet Replaced Pike and Shot: From 1650 to the Napoleonic Wars

The rise of the bayonet changed warfare in Europe strongly and lastingly. As more and more armies relied on this weapon in the 17th and 18th centuries, it increased not only the infantry's defensive capabilities but also its shock value and its firepower. This is because before the bayonet, the armies of Europe had relied on pikes and muskets to solve the most basic tactical problem of infantry, which was to balance the interplay of pike and shot. They wanted to optimize their firepower, but still needed pikemen to defend against cavalry charges. The bayonet solved this problem by uniting both types of weapons in a single instrument, the flintlock rifle musket with bayonet. So, let's look at how the bayonet conquered the armies of Europe and how it was used in battle.
#history #documentary #education
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Some must read mlitary history books:
Ambrose, S. E., Band of Brothers: E Company, 2001. amzn.to/438ltvZ
Baime, A. J., The Accidental President: Harry S. Truman, 2017. amzn.to/3TcDGUj
Beard, M., Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient Roman World, 2023. amzn.to/49L2olR
Bevoor, A., Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, 1999. amzn.to/4a4rqwe
Beevor, A., The Second World War, 2013. amzn.to/3wNFITu
Brennan, P+D., Gettysburg in Color, 2022. amzn.to/48LGldG
Clausewitz, C., On War, 2010. amzn.to/3Vblf5
Kaushik, R., A Global History of Pre-Modern Warfare: 10,000 BCE-1500 CE, 2021. amzn.to/49Mtqt7
McPherson, J., Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era, 2021. amzn.to/3TseYAW
Tsu, S., The Art of War, 2007, amzn.to/3TuknHA
Sledge. E. B., With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, 2008. amzn.to/439olIK
Pomerantsev, P., How to Win an Information War, 2024. amzn.to/3Ts0YqQ
Bibliography
Lynn, John, Giant of the Grand Siecle. The French Army, 1610-1715, Cambridge 1997.
Muir, Rory, Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon, New Haven/London 1998.
Archer, Christon I./Ferris, John R./Herwig, Holger H./Travers, Timothy H. E., World History of Warfare, Lincoln 2002.

[@clive3490]

Theres nothing scarier than hearing "FIX, BAYONETS" from the other side of a paintball arena

[@Cooldude-ko7ps]

What do they tape on those, foam nerf knives?

[@jeffdallama5431]

@@Cooldude-ko7psa paint brush

[@fenrisianbrony7151]

Permanent markers

[@Mygg_Jeager]

Nah. That ain't got shit on "RAMMING SPEED!" from a pilot.

[@Mygg_Jeager]

PS: Slava Ukraine Nice display pic. :)

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

''You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them'' - Metternich

[@ddunfuh9239]

You cant eat them, napoleon figured this out himself in russia

[@chungkwok6131]

I think that was Metternich

[@gent9358]

It was Metternich, he was talking about how one could repress revolutionaries successfully but that means one can never take a break in that act, you can't sit on the bayonet.

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

@@chungkwok6131 I also remember it as a Metternich quote but when I checked it was attributed to Napoleon, still I am not 100% sure.

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

@@gent9358 Oh, ok then.

[@johnmcfarlane3147]

would you rather have a long pointy stick or a long pointy boomstick

[@karabenomar]

Your point will stick with me for long

[@Mygg_Jeager]

Yes

[@etiennesharp]

The psychological argument makes sense. It's easier to disregard a musket ball that you'll never see but the man charging at you with a blade on a pole is very, very evident.

[@Chikanuk]

For example - one of most respected Russian military commanders, general-fieldmarshal Suvorov teach his officers and soldiers to rely mostly on bayonets charges, his famous qoute -“a bullet is a fool, a bayonet is a good fellow”.

[@pjbyrne1997]

Fun fact, in Iraq, the bayonet found some use as a policing tool, as civillians were not particularly afraid of American troops pointing weapons at them to dissuade them from approaching, but putting a bayonet on the end of their rifle was much more effective at keeping civillians at a distance.

[@ericwang9348]

that’s not a very fun fact

[@olivere5497]

American imperialist baby murderers, i hope those hero veterans get nightmares and ptsd while waking up in a cold Chad sweat next to Stacy

[@hedgehog3180]

That sounds a bit backwards, usually pointing a gun at someone is such an insane level of escalation that it's a terrible idea when policing and bayonets provide a helpful middle ground where you aren't literally threatening to kill someone. I'm guessing that it's not that civilians weren't scared at having a gun pointed towards them but that they had become so used to it happening (because the US army in Iraq would just randomly threaten people all the time for no reason) that they had called the bluff and knew that the soldiers weren't actually gonna fire. As stated the bayonet actually carried a credible threat since you can use it to just poke someone without murdering or maiming them.

[@yoinksp8972]

​@@olivere5497sounds like you have some inner demons to work out. Best of luck.

[@olivere5497]

@@yoinksp8972 heheh Heh Heheheh.

[@keerf255]

The lack of bayonet wounds in field hospitals is indeed for the reason you stated 'the weaker side fled' but there's also another reason.. There were typically no survivors to treat.

[@UnsolicitedContext]

I think a number of the studies also looked at corpse wounds

[@chelyukha]

I don’t think there were field hospitals back then. Officers could hope for medical assistance (if they had servants and money at hand), but lower ranks were unlikely to receive any treatment

[@hedgehog3180]

@@chelyukha Field hospitals absolutely did exist, the sources on that point are overwhelming, armies have always had some sort of hospital. However before the rise of modern medicine in the mid 19th century they just weren't particularly effective due to the risk of infection. There were only a few types of operations they could carry out that were actually effective such as amputations and occasionally cleaning wounds and extracting bullets.

[@hedgehog3180]

Bayonet wounds weren't necessarily any more deadly than any other melee weapon, a hit anywhere other than the chest or head had pretty good chances of survival.

[@chelyukha]

​@@hedgehog3180 wounds to the stomach (penetrating wounds into the abdominal cavity), both bayonet and shot, were very often fatal

[@jonhudson3568]

I remember hearing a story about how a British observer of the American Civil War was horrified that when one side would bayonet charge, the other would often either hold rank or counter charge into them, instead of just using it as a mostly psychological weapon

[@magni5648]

The American Civil War was really kind of hard to compare with contemporary european warfare. Armies were both way more shy about the bayonett (which in turn led to equally horrifying bloodbaths as formations would just stand in line and shoot each others to pieces in extended gunfights, when a bajonett charge could have decided the whole issue a lot faster and with *less* death toll on both sides), and then in turn would sometimes be suicidally stubborn when it did come to a bayonett action. The main culprit of this is that leadership on both sides was just very limited - ACW armies were led by mostly green amateur officers with little formal training or education (with the comparatively few pre-war professional officers mostly kicked upwards to high-level positions as the Union and Confederate armies ballooned in size), while the larger, standing european armies had vast reserve systems in place to ensure that they had well-trained officers all the way down.

[@danvondrasek]

@magni5648 well yeah. The civil war split our officer corps almost down the middle. We lost a lot of officers to the south, and didn't have the time to replace them with experienced commanders, so instead we filled roles with rich kids. Like Robert Shaw.

[@magni5648]

@@danvondrasekIt's not just the split, it's that the pre-war US Army was just *tiny* before both sides started splitting. There just wasn't nearly enough fully-trained officers for armies the size either side mobilised, and no way in hell was the existing academy system going to be able to provide such a number.

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

@@magni5648 .. about being shy of using the bayonet charge and just staying in line and fire at each other, remember that it's the time of RIFLED muskets. Which were deadly accurate at at least 200 yards. So yes, a bayonet charge would have decided the whole issue a lot faster. The charging side would be wiped out or badly crippled even before reaching the enemy line. Picket charge was the textbook example of this outcome. Or the battle of Fredericksburg. It was deemed more effective to shoot at each other until one side reach the breaking point and flee.

[@magni5648]

@@CipiRipi-in7dfRifled muskets didn't push out engagement ranges as much as you'd think. Between rather low marksmanship standards amongst most line infantry and blackpowder fumes quickly reducing sight lines, line infantry engagements in the era of the Civil War tended to take place at ranges quite similar to those of napoleonic times. Pickett's Charge was a case of a nigh perfect situation to make a bajonett charge falter. Long distance, up an incline, multiple obstacles, insufficient artillery preparation etc. on top of the shortcomings of the Civil War armies. (And much the same goes for Fredericksburg.) And yet Pickett's Charge still came pretty damn close anyway. To put this quite simply: If you replaced Longstreets three divisions with prussian regulars, the Union line would have been broken through, just from better coordination, low-level leadership and drill. Or if you want an ur-example of this whole tendency of trying to shoot it out instead of going for a quick and less bloody bajonett action, look no farther than the Sunken Road at Antietam. The Union troops at several points decided to keep trading fire with the Confederates in the road at ranges under 100 yards instead of pressing in, and the result was an indecisive mutual slaughter.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Modern armies use bayonets to increase the moral of their troops because in training they have been prepared to stab the enemy in close combat if needed, so staying at a distance and shooting becomes less terrifying by comparison.

[@AntipaladinPedigri]

8:36 dude is doing an insurance scam. Pretending that the cannon ran him over

[@majintab7710]

I heard from a video on "forgotten weapons" that bayonets are still useful to have, when guarding prisoners, because it will make them less inclined to try to take the weapon away from the guards

[@ravinraven6913]

chances are you are watching a video that no one proof checked or fact checked to find out if it was real. Instead of find out you believe him? Bayonets are still useful, period...no need to explain, if you don't get it, you should probably stay in school

[@majintab7710]

@@ravinraven6913 uhhh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today...but anyways, don't worry, I am a researcher, so I am still in school

[@stefans6853]

It honestly surprises me how it took so long for the ring bayonet to be invented. Contless conflicts during pike and shot but nobody thought of simply attaching a spear to a gun. Similarly also cavalry stirrups.

[@ethandunn6498]

Stirrups weren't necessary for a long time. there was the 'celtic saddle', a series of wooden fastenings that held you in the saddle via your thighs. Originally, stirrups advented in china as a riding aid for the elderly.

[@stephenkenney8290]

You would be surprised how often things like that happen. Sometimes an improvement is so simple it can go unnoticed for centuries or even millennia.

[@Tom-ug7kt]

The impact of a Thrust on the weapon can be devastating for accuracy and overall function. You need good rifles, good steel etc.

[@generalaigullletes5830]

If I remember correctly, the issue is that the ring bayonet has complications with production. The actual blade of the bayonet needs to be connected to the barrel by a thin piece of metal, which may be hard to properly produce so that it doesn't break under wear and tear. If it's hard to produce then it's expensive to produce, and as thus would not be kitted out to all soldiers when there's an alternative in the pike. EDIT: Do further research, however.

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

​@@stephenkenney8290 Reminds me of the production of Lawrence of Arabia. Peter O'Toole had a rough time adjusting to riding his saddle atop the camels, and his discomfort led him to take a piece of neoprene and stick it on his saddle. The Arab extras saw this and started sticking similar cushions on their own saddles (supposedly cutting up anything on the set that could be used as such). O'Toole then was dubbed with an Arabic nickname that translated to "The Father of the Sponge."

[@planescaped]

It is often said how terrifying and brutal bayonet fighting was, yet the same thing is not applied to medieval melee anywhere near as much. I think the biggest reason is the complete lack of armor soldiers of the gun era had. Even a padded jack and some chainmail would at least provide some reassurance. When you're just wearing clothes... yeah, a bayonet fight sounds awful.

[@adamek1503]

Dude its not about armor or smt like this but the shape of tringular bayonette - a wound from this thing couldnt be treated and most soldiers were dying, thats the reason it was so fearfull and soldiers run from them. In medieval fight you could tread your sword or spear injury and live to fight another day.

[@steggoraptor]

@@adamek1503 The wound of a triangular bayonette being uniquely untreatable is a myth. Further if you had armor you would still have more protection from such a wound, and therefore still would be a factor to consider.

[@philippemontesinos9034]

​@adamek1503 Most medieval weapons would leave wounds much worse than a bayonet. The pike part of a halberd was triangular, so the same as a bayonet. A spearhead was probably larger then a bayonet, so the wound was most likely worse then bayonet. Warpick triangular and larger, a warhammer would leave you with a massive open wound that is impossible to stich as it's a giant gaping hole of thorn flesh.

[@ToudaHell]

I've heard of the medieval battles akin to a forest of razor blades so armour made sense then. But both the bayonett and the musket could just punch through the mail and leather armour, so it just became an incumbersom weight as infantry walked toward the enemy line to try to break it. As Major Sharpe said, the point of a battle is to see who's infantry line can get to the others first. The enemy line fled because they know the battle is lost if they ever get to bayonet range.

[@steggoraptor]

@@ToudaHell As far as I am aware, armor was dropped because it was too ineffectual against musket fire to justify its cost. However I see no reason that armor wouldn't have helped in the bayonet charge. Even mail would decrease the effectiveness of the bayonet, but I am pretty sure mail was phased out for plate based armors by this time anyway.

[@Alias_Anybody]

I think a great topic for another video would be "How the Grenadiers (haven't) lost their grenades", basically a history about the use of grenades in warfare from the 1500s to the Cold War.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Yeah. Otherwise we'll end up thinking grenade = funny hat.

[@anzebeton1869]

Lindybeige law: armies will always use pointy sticks

[@LuisAldamiz]

Not anymore.

[@TheGuyFrom7Hubble]

​@LuisAldamiz yes, since some armies still have bayonets that can be attached to the end of the gun

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@TheGuyFrom7Hubble - They still don't use them almost ever. They are much more likely to shoot at point blank these days bc weapons are automatic, there's no need to use pointy sticks when you can shoot many bullets in that same precious time.

[@sushimuncher282]

Bayonet use in Europe: "Just a prank bro. Got you running! Hahaha!" Bayonet use in the Pacific: "I'mma use this as it is intended to be used. Tenno heika, Banzai!"

[@Despotic_Waffle]

Realistically any army that had bayonets probably stabbed people

[@lolasdm6959]

No it's iterally the same use, to scare your enemy into abandoning a position.

[@roykay4709]

One soldier and weapon we don't here much about is the grenadier and whatever grenades they use.

[@quintus6081]

In the Bundeswehr they taught us anti-assault shooting. If you run the risk of being overrun by the enemy in close combat, you should have a full magazine in your rifle and the folding spade open and ready to hand. Funny time.

[@arielquelme]

Short answer Pike & shoot= half piking half shooting Bayonet= everybody piking & shooting

[@jeroylenkins1745]

They say that with modern weapons the chances of actually needing your bayonet are very very slim. But if you do need your bayonet, you REALLY fucking need it.

[@nealmaxwell790]

Never underestimate the unrelenting power of a pointed stick

[@TheIrishvolunteer]

Ah bayonets, carrying on man’s age old tradition of fighting with pointy sticks. P.S Love the Napoleonic animations!

[@lolasdm6959]

Every weapon will inevitably evolve into a pointy stick

[@TheIrishvolunteer]

@@lolasdm6959 Inevitably

[@JayzsMr]

It’s very interesting that something which was common in human warfare for 1000s of years, close range melee fighting almost completely ceased to happen when not necessary anymore. It shows you need a lot of drill and force to get humans to do something which is very much against basic survival instinct

[@videomaniac108]

I told my drill sergeants during bayonet training when I was in Army basic training in the late 1960s that I really wasn't too keen on having to fight other soldiers with a bayonet, that shooting them at a distance was more my style.

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

The last known bayonette charge by a modern army was by British soldiers at the Battle of Danny Boy in the second Iraq war. It was apparently a very, very, very messy affair.

[@CoffeeFiend1]

Especially considering we use bullpups.... Our rifles aren't long to begin with and our handles are in the middle of the weapon.

[@struanblack9867]

Another (relatively) recent example, would be the British paratroopers in the Falklands war. The Argentinian body armour was too thick to penetrate, so the Paras had to bayonet the Argentinians in the face. Also a very messy affair.

[@warandconquest6522]

Every thing I think of the Brown Bess I think of the quote from the show Turn. “Don’t think of it was a gun but as a spear that shoots”

[@odd-ysseusdoesstuff6347]

I own a musket for home defense because that is what the Founding Fathers intended!

[@ricardomartinez1586]

The image you used to represent a bayonet charge during WW2 is actually a painting representing the last battalion-sized bayonet charge by the 65th Infantry "The Borinqueneers" a Puertorrican Regiment of the U.S. Army during the Korean War. Honor et Fidelitas

[@jerrysantiago7933]

Notice that too!

[@pedrosabino8751]

The perfect mix of sling, spear and club

[@michaelgarcia4035]

I love those last bits of footage in the video. You really start to see how much of a last resort the Bayonet has become simply from its size. Its incredible to see long rifles with basically mini swords attached to them, to carbines with knives attached to them in a span of about 100 years. In some countries, an even shorter amount of time.

[@Siddingsby]

7:20 This is actually depicting a scene from the Battle of Großbeeren (1813), with Saxons (left) fighting Prussians (right).

[@MouseDenton]

I love that you mentioned the moment the "rubber meets the road" of these formations; a charge by the attackers, like a thrown punch, a volley from the defenders, like a block or jab, and then counter-charge when they falter, like a riposte. Such battles between entire formations were much more complex than we typically see depicted; though the tactics were at a larger scale, they were no less present than in the modern era. I also like that you cited sources that identified the slaughter of battle as being when one side breaks. It always amazes me to hear of accounts between formations where total casualties don't even reach triple-digits until one made to flee, then the numbers ballooned into the thousands.

[@giacomoromano8842]

Virgin 17th century gunner "let me put a dagger in my musket barrel, making it a useless gun and a mediocre spear" vs chad Streltsy "my arquebus leg is an axe".

[@TeutonicEmperor1198]

Bardiche-Musket goes brrrrrrr....

[@Mygg_Jeager]

LMFAO

[@Vlugazoide]

Weird how a simple piece of metal seems to have been responsible for the radical changes in warfare and army composition, but by making an unit of musketeers self reliant in melee, most of the uses of renaissance infantry could just be absorbed by them, like the square formation of musketeers protected against all but the heaviest charges

[@Halfdanr_H]

A former British soldier who I used to work with once told me that if you ever hear the command to fix your bayonet, you know things are about to get a bit nasty. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000’s

[@TuorTheBlessedOfUlmo]

"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap" Alexander suvorov

[@mr.stotruppen8724]

Take a look back through any point in history and you'll find that the one defining trait of the "elite infantry" of their day is their greater willingness to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat. Melee weapons are just the first and final form of achieving that.

[@jeffreytam7684]

Worth noting, the introduction of the flintlock musket itself helped make the universal use of the bayonet possible. Before the flintlock, muskets were either matchlocks (with its obvious disadvantages to using it as a bayonet platform), or wheellocks (expensive, and sometimes fragile). The hardy, relatively inexpensive flintlock was both tough enough to be used as a close combat weapon, and accessible enough for it to become “easy” to give everyone a firearm.

[@KaizerKlash111]

Can you explain why matchlocks are bad at being a bayonet platform ? Are they more fragile ?

[@jeffreytam7684]

@@KaizerKlash111Matchlocks rely on a slow match (basically a small length of rope that's been infused with flammable substances-most commonly potassium nitrate, known as saltpetre) to ignite the powder in the pan. You would light the match before entering combat, and it would (hopefully) stay lit for the duration of fighting. It would be quite dangerous to try and perform the classic techniques seen in bayonet fighting, or using it as a pike to repel cavalry. Other than the unreliable nature of the match itself, matchlocks were fairly hardy weapons, with little to go wrong.

[@KaizerKlash111]

@@jeffreytam7684 Ok, I understand, thanks for the reply

[@jeffreytam7684]

@@KaizerKlash111 You're welcome!

[@Marmocet]

Horses are fairly intelligent animals that have a well developed instinct for self-preservation. In my experience, they will not run into a barrier of spikey objects (thorns, barbed wire fences, pointy-looking fence posts, etc.) unless they can't avoid them for some reason. Many horses are risk averse and won't even attempt to jump over such barriers even if they're typically capable of clearing similar sized barriers that lack points and barbs. When faced with barriers like this, horses will simply refuse to move forward, and if pressed to do so, they will sometimes try to throw their riders.

[@hia5235]

not a single horse on this planet that are trained like the old war horses of Europe. I get that you think this, but theres dozens of accounts of them doing just that. Again. These horses are heavily trained.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Actually that's why they were replaced by tanks. Humans are arguably less smart and definitely have much worse sense of self-presevation, especially those with military training. Now, seriously, training horses for war seems to be an art. You can't ride just any horse in a cavalry charge but you may be able to ride a well trained cavalry horse (or even mules, which apparently medieval bishops favored as mounts for symbolic reasons). Said that most cavalry charges were just feints, they had to stop, pull back regroup, try again at some weaker point, etc.

[@AlexHalt100]

somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.

[@hedgehog3180]

People can tolerate a lot of horror if its inflicted slowly and with a low chance of it hitting specifically them.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

Bayonets remain a useful weapon even in the 21st century. While obviously horses are not usually a factor, and Mass wave charges are no longer usually viable, having a melee weapon with range beyond a simple knife is still very useful. A great example is the US Marines in 2005, during the urban fighting in Fallujah. Having a blade on your gun when entering compact areas can be very useful.

[@hedgehog3180]

Bayonets are also useful for policing since they provide a middle ground between pointing a loaded gun at someone and just making a general threatening gesture. The only threatening gesture you can make with a gun is to point it at someone and that's basically threatening to kill them which is usually an unnecessary level of escalation and counterproductive since in policing operations you want to de-escalate tensions. A bayonet gives you a clear middle point where you can just sorta wave it in the direction of someone to tell them to leave. It's a lot more similar to a police baton in the level of implied violence and you can even use a bayonet while doing minimum damage by just sorta poking someone without putting much force into it. Also knives in general are just a useful tool to have so why not also stick it on your gun.

[@willkiecana3413]

The aspect of bayonet charges causing routes and rarely resulting in heavy melee combat is depicted pretty well in napoleon total war.

[@kyleheins]

Really? I find the use of bayonet charges in that game almost exclusively results is a bloody slugfest leaving both units half strength or less and take up to two minutes to resolve...

[@desserted5446]

@@kyleheinsagreed

[@CataciousAmogusevic]

​@@kyleheinsthey dont last too long

[@thegloryofromeiseternal]

​@@kyleheinswith mods it can be more realistic and much quicker

[@kyleheins]

@CataciousAmogusevic the vast majority of real bayonet charges involved little to no contact between the engaged units, in ntw they almost exclusive clash physically, and it generally takes over 30 seconds for one to break.

[@dmitrikulkevicius9161]

My first technology research in Empire total war, is the bayonet.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Because it is from Bayonne and everything Basque is oh-soooo-coooool! Kalitatea!

[@billstidams6658]

I think it was the battle of Fallujah.. Marine rifle company was running low on ammo in a intense engagement. The company commander ordered “fix bayonets!!”.. the opposition saw this.. thought about it.. and then decided to disengage and pull back.. they wanted no part of it. Lol

[@lolasdm6959]

It's the British infantry I belive.

[@nvelsen1975]

If only it had actually happened, since the chances of an insurgent refusing the chance to drop 30 guys in seconds are slim to none. There's a similar myth surrounding Lewis Millet supposedly winning charges, while the reality is he was a senile old boomer who got his guys killed. Look at the Ukraine war and closerange trench warfare: Nobody's using bayonets. And there's footage out there of guys shooting eachother with barrels touching chests,

[@frankmartin3600]

Sure, cool story bro.

[@Mygg_Jeager]

​@@nvelsen1975Fixed Bayonets, not so much. But Shovels, knives, and bayonets held on the hand, oh yes. Absolutely there's a LOT of that going on. Mostly because fixed bayonets are nearly unusable in a narrow and confined trench.

[@TheGuyFrom7Hubble]

​@Mygg_Jeager that's a gimmick, even though Shovels, trench knives, trench maces were used to bludgeon the enemy, you can still see some stabbing with bayonets in the trenches in world War 1.

[@hansoskar1911]

the swedish caroleans were an interesting step in between the pike and shot combination and the bayonet musketeers as they used pikes to defend against cavalry but used rapiers as the melee weapon when they charged.

[@lolasdm6959]

The Swedish caroleans were a hybrid formation of pike and muskets, the pikemen were at the front of formation during melee combat. They used both weapons against cav and inf.

[@praetorian3902]

Vauban again ? This guy and his genius brain keep showing up.

[@ethandunn6498]

When observing the american civil war, British warmakers were shocked to find that neither side really utilised the bayonet to its potential. rather thy stood in line shooting at teach other for ages, rather than unloading 2 salvos and then bayonet charging - which almost always resulted in the enemy fleeing from the bayonet charge because no one want to get bayonetted!

[@AlexHalt100]

somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that dirty, foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.

[@mjxw]

They were obviously wrong about that though, as the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars showed just a couple years later. Both of those wars were characterized by firepower and entrenchment, not bayonet charges.

[@doritofeesh]

@@mjxw They were correct for the time period that the ACW was taking place, albeit not the geography and other circumstances. The most common rifle on the Union side, the Springfield Model 1861 only fired 2-3 shots on average, which wasn't all too different from most smoothbore muskets. Its optimal range also couldn't be relied upon, because the rough terrain and forests in which several major battles took place hindered the vision of the soldiers, so in many ways, they were used like overglorified smoothbores. In contrast, the country in Europe was much more flat and open, with less forestry hindering the vision of the soldiers. The Dreyse and Chassepot rifles also fired at a rate some 3-4x faster than the Springfield. One must also take into account that smoothbores were still quite prevalent in the earlier half of the ACW, as well. The problem was not that technology in the ACW prevented bayonet charges. It was more so due to other issues, such as the terrain mentioned above. In addition, mass conscription in such a short time meant that the soldiers were largely inexperienced until later in the war. The British regulars, in comparison, were very well drilled and tended to prefer a few closer range volleys before closing in with the bayonet. Union and Confederate generals seldom issued bayonet charges because they understood the condition of their troops and the terrain they were fighting in.

[@aronmarkovits5396]

@@doritofeesh unless you take into account the fact that at the time the brits really had glorified smoothbores too, the only real differrence was that the brits failed to understand anything beyond highly drilled soldiers since they never had the misfortune of facing a foe of equal size in the era. This was mentioned by you, thought i will add context if you will

[@doritofeesh]

@@aronmarkovits5396 Yeah, that was a rather reoccurring issue with the British military on land. They had high quality soldiers during the War of the Austrian Succession and post-Peninsular War. Though, most of their commanders tended to fight colonial wars rather than engage on the mainland. It was less so that they had the chance to face a foe of equal size. It was more so that they rarely had the chance to face a foe alone in a major conflict involving tens of thousands of men. Though, this is inherently an issue of strategic resources; Britain simply didn't have the manpower to fight in such large-scale wars without being part of some alliance or another (and this would be remedied later down the line by foreign auxiliaries, namely from India). As great as their navy was, I think that they only really produced two truly incredible field generals in military history prior to the 20th century, those being Marlborough and Wellington. As shown in the WAS, AWI, War of 1812, and the 1st Anglo-Maratha War, though... not a lot of their commanders outside these two knew how to make optimal usage of the British soldiery. In contrast, we see those like the French and Austrians having produced more capable military leaders on land, who are able to make better use of their troops, even if their quality is more average or mixed.

[@richardsawyer5428]

"They don't like it up them!"

[@patrickdixon3512]

What you mean by that 🤨🤨

[@simonh6371]

@@patrickdixon3512 Don't tell him, Pike!

[@MajorCoolD]

I began thinking a while ago that mabye... just maybe, the reports on bayonet injuries in field hospitals is so rare due to survivor bias? Think about it: A man can easily catch a bullet in his arm, his thigh, lower leg or his shoulder and be either left behind or carried off the battlefield. If one doesnt die of shock or was hit in a vital area it was unlikely they'd die very quickly. But if I am in a bloody melee and I am stabbing at someone with a bayonet... I think I'd make sure that the guy is either getting trampled after getting skewered and brought down, or make sure he wont get up again, right? Maybe there were so few reports and accounts of bayonet wounds because either the wounds were not 'serious' enough to warrant much medical attention, or simply due to the fact that the dead dont need medical attention (at least not if you have hundreds of wounded soldiers who's lives you can potentially save.). Just a thought.

[@planescaped]

It's likely part of it at least.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Knives do kill, especially if they cut a key artery (you bleed to death in no time). What I don't understand is where do you get reports from field hospitals before the Crimea War (Nightingale) or the creation of the Red Cross at Solferino (Dunant), which are almost at the end of bayonet warfare era.

[@MajorCoolD]

@@LuisAldamiz Well it wasnt uncommon for Field Doctors and Barber Surgeons to either write reports, diaries or Surgeon's Books etc. where they wrote about their experiences, procedures etc. So I figured it probably comes from those. Also I think we need to differentiate betwen propepr Hospitals and 'litterally a bunch of tents, or maybe a stable full of wounded, diseased, dead or dying' with only half a dozen remotely qualified medical personal taking care of hundreds of patients. While their recovery rate was relatively low... it was litterally for most soldiers their best shot at survival if they got severely wounded. (which why lightly wounded soldiers often just 'walked it off' in a sense, though of course infection/gangrene is a nasty thing)

[@danvondrasek]

It's messed up to think that until around the Vietnam War, we as humans have been fighting with what are essentially spears. A rifle with a bayonet is just a spear that shoots, until it doesn't

[@mr.normalguy69]

And when it stops shooting, it becomes a normal spear 💉

[@danvondrasek]

@@incognito9292 eh, that's kind of a stretch, but sure.

[@Imperial_Navy_40K]

​@@danvondraseknukes are just giant flying spears with explosion

[@dforbes8783]

My First Sgt, just back from combat, said, "If you are close enough to stick him, you are close enough to shoot him. He hated the bayonet.

[@anderskorsback4104]

Unless your rifle magazine is empty. If that happens and you're at point blank range, sticking the enemy with a bayonet is faster than reloading.

[@Lightning_Toad]

True as that may be, I imagine a bayonet serves less as an alternative to shooting someone and more as a Plan B. I'm no soldier, though, so that's just speculation.

[@ravinraven6913]

your first sgt just got back from combat? Why did you leave him behind? Oh you were transferred but he wasn't? Sounds like your sgt may have been....no offense, an idiot. How long is the basic military issue combat rifle....sometimes they are closer than 2 feet and your gun would reach past them. Though I would hate to have to stab someone, its personal when you use a knife. I wouldn't want to rely on a gun when my life is 2 feet away from being taken. It does call into question the level of intelligence of our jar heads. I know the words are supposed to mean basically an air head without intelligence. But this is the USA where the dumbest person should still be a genius compared to others. But we still have military people sending the classified documents onto Discord or other internet sites. Because they would rather be cool by civilians than follow the ins and outs of the job as a military personnel and keep classified information secret. So it doesn't seem like that will change any time soon, even when its basic words one sentence long, it looks obvious that they flunked high school and had one of 3 options, fast food, pump gas and the military. But I figured some branch had to have intelligent people, I just don't know where they all went to

[@LuisAldamiz]

But that was not the case with single shot guns. Especially not in the age of muskets.

[@Lightning_Toad]

@@ravinraven6913 You are a bully.

[@kerberos623]

"In 2004, a group of British troops running low on ammunition, launched a bayonet charge against a group of Mahdi Army militiamen."

[@gudmundursteinar]

My personal belief is that the Bayonette (and flintlock) is the most important invention in political science. This is because it fundamentally changes how armies are recruited and who is suitable as a soldier. In the period before linear warfare, pike and shot, it was complex and difficult to be a soldier. The pike square with supporting fire was a complex and difficult organization to run. The regular soldier was a professional, often called mercenary, who worked for whoever needed soldiers. It required an exising company with novice and experienced soldiers. It took about 10 years of campaigning to become truly experience and all those 10 years needed to be with the same company. This means that soldiers were a class within society. This is why Maximilian makes them all nobles. It was also a class of limited size. To become a soldier meant competing for a position as a trainee among the various companies and rulers competed for the ability hire these companies at war and often had strong relations e.g. the valvois and the swiss and the hapsburgs and the swabians . Whent the bayonette and linear warfare is introduced it fundamentally changs the economics of making an army. You no longer need 10 year veterans. It is of course good to have them but you don't need them. You can grab a peasant from a field beat him into submission and teach him basic drill in about a month and voila you have an army. Guns were relatively cheap as was powder and shot. At this point armies are no longer making their own, since that is a skill, they are being issued with ammunition and uniforms and boots and everything. This moves power from the lower nobility which made up soldiers during the later pike and shot into the hands of the upper nobility which could organize large groups of peasants into large armies. This is the fundamental basis for absolutism, royal or parliamentarian. This fundamental change changed the politics of states and the ability of states to wage war. States that reformed early prospered, like sweden, and states that didn't reform at all disappeared, like poland. This is the core fact that defines the long 18th century and why it was different from the 17th before it in such a significant way. I give you the humble bayonette.

[@magni5648]

I think you got it backwards. Pikemen were in fact extremely cheap and easy to train up to an acceptable standard. The change from mercenaries to conscript and professional standing armies has more to do with changing socio-economics than equipment changes. States got wealthier and more centralised, and hence able to wield the money and manpower that standing armies of conscripts and volunteer professionals require.

[@gudmundursteinar]

@@magni5648 but the musketment zweihander doppeltsoldner etc etc and the entire system of coordination and experience was expensive. Recruties started as pikemen. This is one of the reasons why pike and shot era armies were often 2/3 cavalry.

[@magni5648]

@@gudmundursteinarNot really, especially as it was rapidly simplified down to just pikes and muskets, as well as changing gradually from pike squares to linear tactics. Lest we forget, the switch from mercenaries to professional and conscript-based armies PREDATES the abandonement of the pike in favour of the bajonett. The bajonett didn't simplify training by much at all, it just increased equipment standardisation and firepower further for the already prevalent linear formations at the time.

[@gudmundursteinar]

@@magni5648 It was 'simplified' from swords, pikes and muskets to just pikes and muskets... however a late pike and shot era block had at least 9 separate functional units doing different things at the same time all of which were mutually supporting. This was much much much more complex and much much much more difficult to organize than a simple triple line of men with bayonettes and flintlocks. Mercenaries were professionals, that's the point. Linear warfare removed much of the need for professional and experienced soldiers in favor of a few experienced officers with large blocks of often green men.

[@magni5648]

@@gudmundursteinarAnd yet training for the soldiers remained extremely simple and quick. It's OFFICERS where you needed sophisticated training to make that work. And yes, linear tactics further simplified things and were good for green leadership, too. And also PREDATE THE BAJONETT. So again, you got it backwards: It was political and socio-economic change that drove the change in battlefield tactics and technology in this case, not the other way around.

[@olivierpuyou3621]

The last bayonet charge I heard about happened during the Battle of Sarajevo where French soldiers led by their captain charged onto a bridge and pushed over Serbian soldiers, killing quite a few of them. It was almost the 21st century.

[@lolasdm6959]

20 Brritish soldiers charged with bayonets in the gulf war and routed a bunch of Iraqi soldiers.

[@olivierpuyou3621]

@@lolasdm6959 What battle, under what circumstances? I'm curious to know the answer. Thanks in advance.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@olivierpuyou3621 google bayonet charge iraq war Battle of Danny Boy

[@aronmarkovits5396]

@@olivierpuyou3621 you need not have a battle for charges to happen and since it was 2 sections tops i doubt it was any major force on force action. But charges happen from time to time, even in ukraine today, tough mostly as a last resort

[@olivierpuyou3621]

@@lolasdm6959 Ok, I saw Danny Boy's battle, but it's a DEFENSIVE action not a CHARGE, sorry but between a defensive action and a bayonet charge the difference is quite striking.

[@TheWhiskyDelta]

The Carolinians had started before this issuing all gunners with swords and employed the charge shock tactic as their primary method of war, typically firing only 1-3 times in total before charging. It was more inconvenient and they still retained pikes without bayonets but still, that is the general offensive bayonet tactics predated the bayonet.

[@collin4592]

The most recent bayonet charge was by a British unit in Afghanistan.

[@kyrios443]

Tell me more, please

[@ravanpee1325]

Urban myth

[@Mygg_Jeager]

​@@ravanpee1325Nope. A column was attacked by a mob of unarmed and unruly civilians in Iraq. So instead of gunning them all down, the Brits fixed bayonets and stood firm. After a brief melee, a handful of fatalities on the Iraqis and no casualties on the British side, the mob dispersed.

[@millennialwatchman6703]

One thing I've often wondered is how the hell did soldiers in early modern armies avoid going deaf? Imagine crouching, with both your hands holding a pike, and then someone fires a musket right next to your ear. I guess they could have worn earmuffs or stuffed cotton into their ears, but then how could they listen to commands from their officers?

[@squidmanfedsfeds5301]

I still don’t have an explanation for this, must be that the musket lines weren’t so loud but artillery definitely was and they did suffer hearing damage

[@millennialwatchman6703]

@squidmanfedsfeds5301 From what I've heard, muskets were even louder than modern guns, which themselves are much louder than what they appear to be in movies. But I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area. Maybe SandRomanhistory could do a video on it?

[@abraham8178]

Yeah, they did run into that issue. That's why a lot of troops rely on the sound of musket fire instead of relying on officers to give orders, which can lead to problems 'cause sometimes soldiers shoot off earlier than they should if their buddies fire out of fear instead of waiting for orders.

[@recoil53]

They didn't. Some did try and stuff cloth in their ears, but it didn't have much effect. Artillerymen were notoriously deaf. Even a modern handgun - which is quieter than old black powder rifles - is over 150 db. For reference, over 120db causes hearing damage and 70db over prolonged periods causes damage. They'd have major ringing of the ears after a battle. My mother was a doctor in the VA system and those WWII, Korean, and Vietnam combat vets all have hearing damage. Let's just say that John Wick would be pretty easy to sneak up on by the last movie.

[@riasapta4109]

Mostly visual order beside sound order colonel or leutenant usualy carrying sabre or flag for this purpose

[@brokenbridge6316]

I remember hearing of a bayonet charge during the Korean War where an American unit utterly destroyed a unit of Chinese. It was an incredible story.

[@krips22]

Yes, an American company charged an entrenched Chinese unit that was at the top of a hill in early february 1951, in Korea. Fun fact: they were actually following "the example" of the French bayonet charges at the battle of Wonju, in Korea, in early January 1951 against the North Korean troops (as the French battalion of NATO run out of ammunitions and had to fend off these attacks only with their bayonets), among fierce combats. US general Ridgway was impressed and encouraged US troops to use their bayonets too, in battle as well.

[@brokenbridge6316]

@@krips22---I see. Thanks for telling me.

[@Justowner]

@@brokenbridge6316 This probably worked because the north koreans were relying on masses of conscripts who probably werent well trained or fed, china for instance sent huge masses of "volunteers" to help the north. So morale was probably not great.

[@brokenbridge6316]

@@Justowner---Well yeah that probably helped.

[@portalovodguides]

Finally, my favorite era!

[@jaydeister9305]

[@lolasdm6959]

pistols don't have the same stopping power, it's not uncommon for soldiers to keep charging with pistol wounds, but a bayonet stops them dead in their track.

[@nvelsen1975]

At least knives and bayonets come with a handle you can hold. I can vouch for the fact that Glock at least doesn't think anyone (who's not a midget with tiny Barby hands) needs to be able to hold their officer sidearms. If they're past rifle length, you've already got bigger problems and it's probably easier to try and kick them off you rather than reaching for a sidearm.

[@nirfz]

@@nvelsen1975 I don't get what you try to say because my gloves are in XL so i don't exactely have small hands, i have been instructed on the P80 (the original Glock pistol) in our military and i have enough knives and a cavalry sabre of the 1860's at home to say: The biggest/beefiest grip of these is on the pistol. So i don't get how you think knives have bigger handles than a Glock pistol... Or are you trying to say your officers get one of the subcompact ones (the ones with the extra short grip for better concealment): 26,27,28,29,30,33,36,39,43 ?

[@nvelsen1975]

@@nirfz I don't know which sub-type we were issued, just that my fingers can reach it around it too far, so when you clench, you push against your own grip. Cramps up pretty fast too. XL latex gloves fit me mostly, but they stretch a bit. My fingers are just very long. But there's no onsets or anything to enlarge the grip. A cop who uses the Walther P5 advised me to make something like that. He had rubber bands around his; also big hands, long fingers. So I inquired whether that existed, or I could make it. Intendance responded with a polite FU. 😆

[@nirfz]

@@nvelsen1975 😂 See we had many things we would want to modify, and as long as we were inside the base that was not allowed with a polite... as you mentioined. As soon as we were out in the field: minor "adjustments" or "tuning measures" were often made to make things work "better" for the individual. (althought the pistol grip was never an issue with us.) And then there was the "what is not visible is not a problem" rule: like extra warm underwear for extra cold termperatures, or things packed that were inside a compartment. (as long as it didn't interfere with the use of actual issued items)

[@florianpierredumont4775]

Fun fact : the last "official" bayonnette charge in french military history occured around the mid 90's, during the Yugoslavia's war. It was conducted by an French officer named Lecointre. Lecointre continued his military career to the point, if I am not outdated, where he became Général en chef des armées de France, under Emmanuel Macron. This story is still remembered, and many of my relatives and friends who were or are in the french army know it. Other fun fact : Lecointre took the place, as Général en chef, of Pierre de Villiers, when de Villiers retired (and after quite a hard argument with Emmanuel Macron). Pierre de Villiers is the brother of Philippe de Villiers, who is the creator of the Puy du Fou park. ;)

[@ionfreak83]

Actually the most recent bayonet charge was in October 2011 when the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment led a bayonet charge against Taliban fighter in the Helmond Province, Afghanistan. Before that in May 2004, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlander bayonet charged a force of 100 insurgent near Al Amara, Iraq which killed 28 insurgents in a 5 hour fierce hand to hand combat sustaining only 3 British wounded.

[@florianpierredumont4775]

@@ionfreak83 Thanks for this information, it's very impressive. I will change the original post, then ! =)

[@MichaelKng-fk5jk]

@@ionfreak83 Nope The Watch conducted an assault and subsequent bayonet charge in Helmand, the last Scottish bayonet charge

[@jamesbeatty8722]

Wasn't there a baynet charge in Ukraine against a Russian trench?

[@sethleoric2598]

I mean it's both a pike AND a shot!

[@Pasteurpipette]

All fun and games until someone brings a pike longer than your musket

[@Justowner]

@@Pasteurpipette That is one less man with a gun though.

[@dimakapeev3156]

Generalisimo Suvorov: The bullet is an idiot, the bayonet is smart.

[@user-pg9qb3wy7s]

Перевод не правильный, но я все равно тебе лайк поставил)

[@dinos9607]

Bayonette was extremely useful not just in WWI but also in WWII. The Greeks casually attacked with bayonet-mounted rifles the Italian positions in the Greek-Italian War (part of WWII) in 1940-41. They would do the same against the Germans trying to invade the Fortresses (a thick line of defense in the Greek Bulgarian border) in 1941. Bayonets were used as peer my knowledge up to the Vietnam war but as some US veterans here claim, they were using them in the Afganistan War when clearing encampments. And it makes total sense.

[@QuantumHistorian]

Famously used in the Falklands too

[@cameronwallman4722]

US marines are still trained and equipped with bayonets

[@aslanlovett4059]

I remember listening to Dan Carlin claim Bayonets were never actually used in fighting and had to stop listening to his stuff after that

[@CrossOfBayonne]

M1 Carbines also had bayonets too for US forces, The M4 adopter was put into use in 1945 but there were instances where paratroopers in Europe used them when it was first adopted in 1942.

[@mrhawk2051]

Bayonets are still useful in modern times. Studies have shown that captured POWs are less likely to charge at a soldier who has a bayonet

[@eltonjohnson1724]

The bayonet has been used as recently as 2004. A British unit used bayonets in Iraq in 2004 as I recall.

[@poggywoggy1999]

i think the latest bayonet charge was in 2008 in afghanistan

[@eltonjohnson1724]

@@poggywoggy1999 I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

[@yankeedoodle7365]

As thus this is why the bayonet is triangular, being a very strong shape and not much of a chance of bending and breaking like a straight blade might. This triangular bayonet could withstand horses or even mounted troops running into them. Also for the period the term musket was used for a military arm, what defined this is the addition of a lug for a bayonet, that made the flintlock a musket. (Edit: Also the whole impossible to stitch up thing is bogus, the reason of the shape is what I have written above this)

[@tedk.6503]

As a bonus, triangular stab wounds are nearly impossible to stitch shut 😮

[@justincoates4582]

​@@tedk.6503is that actually true? I've heard that but refuse to google it.

[@genericpersonx333]

It is not really significant most of the time. It takes more skill and effort to stitch such wounds, but they can be stitched and most surgeons would have the skills. The bigger issue is bayonet wounds to the chest tend to kill quickly, long before a surgeon was likely able to even try, and wounds to the belly usually went horrifically septic, so it didn't matter if one's wound was stitched or not. @@justincoates4582

[@yankeedoodle7365]

@@tedk.6503 No, simply no

[@hia5235]

@@tedk.6503 thats a myth. people are impaled by all sorts of irregular objects in real life: and they all can be stiched.

[@pilentus1230]

I wonder why Bayonets didn't arise as soon as muskets did. They already had the idea of "stick with a pointy end", was there a reason that it took so long for the point end to go on the gun?

[@akshaykumarjha9136]

Early muskets were heavy and wonky. They were also not good enough to reliably discourage infantry or cavalry from charging at them. And since the formation of mixed muskets and pikemen proved reliable enough, they didn’t bother to make their guns worse by fixing knives in the front for a not so great melee weapon.

[@pilentus1230]

@@akshaykumarjha9136 thank you

[@redaethel4619]

Guns were really expensive. Bayonet fighting can and has bent barrels (even on modern weapons with really high grade steel) which you really don’t want on an already very expensive piece of equipment. After the realization that it rarely came to actually stabbing anyone with the bayonet, that became less of a big deal - and as firearms became universally adopted it was no longer the specialist weapon akin to a modern $10k sniper rifle, it was just the generic issue fighting weapon and there were lots of spares.

[@pilentus1230]

@@DiotimaMantinea-gc1uw thank you

[@pilentus1230]

@@redaethel4619 thank you

[@bigsarge2085]

Informative AND entertaining. Incredible documentary, keep up the great work!

[@advasity339]

Gotta love a new video drop after a stressful evening

[@socratrash]

Amazing video. Thank you.

[@heofonfyr6000]

My platoon never cleared a compound in Afghansitan without all fixing bayonets first (except me and the other LMG and MG) Was the same for every Platoon/Company/Battalion I ever worked in. Going in without bayonets fixed seems like a thoroughly stupid idea to me. I almost killed a wounded guy with a Kukri once as some idiot had passed through moments before without properly checking him and he started moving, but I stopped myself when I realised he was very much fucked and his weapon had been kicked away. Anyway I had an LMG and it was a tiny room with solid walls and another guy behind me - wouldn't be very safe to let rip with a burst in there. If he'd had a sidearm and wanted to go down in a blaze of glory I'd have been in trouble. Armies that don't carry bayonets everywhere they go are shite, have altogether the wrong attitude and are obviously too used to sitting back and calling in fire support. You must have blades to carry a position in case of all sorts of eventualities, including stoppages which aren't exactly super rare... I don't understand why someone would want to gamble their life by not carrying one.

[@einkartoffel4323]

Not only that, a knife can be a versatile tool outside of combat - I doubt any soldier really knows what to expect out on patrol, so why not have a fairly light and versatile tool to hand?

[@MrChickennugget360]

British Army?

[@heofonfyr6000]

@@MrChickennugget360 Yes

[@CoffeeFiend1]

The two most common arguments against a combat knife/bayonet/hybrid are weight and training. The thing is though that both of these arguments are in a word... Bollocks.

[@CullenTheDuck]

I love your animations, but I also love this style. Great work

[@Holdit66]

There were also psychological factors in determining whether a bayonet fight would take place. One bit of open ground was as good as another, so there was little incentive for a unit charged with the bayonet to stay put and make a Braveheart-style fight (boy does that movie have a lot to answer for). In built-up areas, however, as much as the possibility of two sides coming together unexpectedly, was the desirability of the holding the location. In the case of a contested village or earthwork, for example, the attackers had somethng to gain by driving the attack home, and the defenders had a somethng to keep that was worth staying put and fighting for, much more so than an empty stetch of field, so the result was often a close quarter fight that would have been very unlikely to happen in the open. More than one Napoleonic general commanted that he had never seen two sides crossing bayonets in open ground. No doubt he would be amused to see how often in happens in movies in television today...

[@hedgehog3180]

It's probably also that if you get into bayonet range with someone accidentally you can't flee anymore and your best chance is to fight but if they charge you on an open field you still got plenty of time to flee. From the point of the individual making the calculation fleeing is obviously the best idea in an open field if it looks like the other side will charge home, however when making that calculation they of course aren't thinking about the greater battlefield and how fleeing impacts their entire force. Also another thing that generally holds true is that if you're the first to flee your chances of survival are always the best, so if a soldier thinks his unit might flee his own incentive to flee becomes much higher.

[@brittakriep2938]

My father, born 1938, asked as young man veterans from wwl what they feared most. They told him, assaults had been fearfull, you see Like in long gone days an angry enemy charging you. But pike didn' t dissapear in early 18th century. In case of pure pallace units , pikes existed in french royal guards until 1789. In case of lowtrained and bad equipped militias / Landsturm of many small HRE states, pikes and matchlock muskets had been used long into 18th century. During , Freedom wars' many prussian Landwehr units had few muskets, so many soldiers started the war with pikes or axes , until they could capture french muskets or got ones from Russia or Brittain. Also in 1813 württembergian King created four Landregimenter/ rural regiments, only half of usual size and only armed with halfpikes. A Police and guardforce only. During US civil war, thousands of pikes had been produced in Confederate states, there are interessting Videos, but the purpose is not exactly known. And during 19th century europe, many Rebel forces or semiofficical citizens units had been armed with warscytes.

[@GerbenWulff]

During WWII the Japanese used local volunteer militia armed with bamboo spears as they didn't trust them enough to hand them real guns.

[@hedgehog3180]

Pikes and other melee weapons kept being used by more civilian units because they're great for peacekeeping and hard to overthrow a government with. Its the same reason why riot police (generally) don't carry fire arms but instead use shields and batons, their job isn't actually to win a fight it's to intimidate and de-escalate. Like with a melee weapon it is easy to threaten someone with the pointy bit but you also can't cause mass slaughter and you can't accidentally kill someone because you loose your nerves, all things you want in a police force that's meant to not escalate the situation. Soldiers losing their nerves or accidentally firing guns have started at least a few revolutions and several revolts.

[@brittakriep2938]

@@hedgehog3180 : I am german, Brittas boyfriend. When Napoleonic Era was over, HRE with more than 300 states no more existed, new German Federation consisted of about fourty states. So after centuries, real policeforces could be established. In larger states, there was mostly a communal Police in Towns , which had been capitals of countries, districts, provinces or whole state. Also villages or ,rural towns' sometimes had a Communal Police, when rich. In villages and small ,rural towns' there had been state payed Gendarmerie/ Landjäger, basicly soldiers doing policework In case of unrest also the Citizens Militias had been up to 1848/49 mobilized as Support force for Army and Police. This militias had been a Mix of lowtrained and bad equipped militias, target shooters societies ( Schützenverein) and tradition keeping organisations. During 1848/49 Revolution attempt, additional militia units had been formed, often only armed with warscytes. In many Museums of my homeregion, former Kingdom Württemberg, you still see this warscytes. After 1849, at least in my state, those still existing militias are only tradition Keepers in historical uniforms. They appear at traditional Events, their band is playing, they do a short march and Drill Show and fire a salvo of blanks. But in addition to this militias, town Police and rural Gendarmerie also relicts of medieval Police still have existed. At first the Communal Nightwatchmen. In württembergian capital Stuttgart they had been replaced by , Nightpolicemen' in 1862, but in Weilheim/ Teck there was a Nightwatchman up to 1931! Well, there was a change of weapons. From 1923 to 1931, last nightwatchman was armed with a pistol in .32 Acp,but before, short polearms had been common, in Museums you see mostly worn down halberds or Spears with broad Tip. Then there was the Amtsdiener/ Büttel/ towncrier. This men wore a Kind of uniform, often an old worn down Uniform of any Kind, this and their short Saber or Baton gave them some authority as auxillary policeman. In 1945 in US occupation Zone this Amtsdiener lost their Status as auxillary policemen, but in rural Germany of those days an uniformed Person still had authority. In my Village the , towncrier ' was in 1955 replaced by a Kind of weekly official newspaper, but my girlfriend Britta told me , that in her small hessian homevillage still in early 1970s a towncrier was in service, a wwll Veteran, who had lost a Leg. Then there had been Field guards, in french ,gardes champetres ', whos Task it was, to protect the farmers fields from harvest thiefs. Bavarian field guards seem to have had some firearms for a short time after wwll, but according to my father, württembergian fieldguards had only canes and dogs. In my Village, last fieldguard ended his Work in 1979.

[@Ironside701]

What's better than Pike and Musket? Transforming your Musket into a shoting Pike. Whole Story short i guess.😅

[@ExperiencePlayers]

Great topic, excited to see

[@browntown52]

16th century=1500's. 17th century=1600's

[@Geckobane]

@@randomuser-xc2wr You need a little bit to change your clocks from reversey time to forward time

[@rhysnichols8608]

Am I the only one who wonders how warfare in say 1715 was different to 1750 and again compared to 1800? We tend to just say ‘18th century warfare’ but that whole period was long, what changed were made from the great northern war to the seven years war for example? the uniforms, like formations and surface level appearance looks very similar, but I would like to know the tactical developments. Other than adding more light infantry and mobile artillery between seven years war and Napoleonic wars I don’t know what else really changed in 1700 to 1800 period

[@nirfz]

You can try to find manuals for soldier training of said periods, from some armies at some point in time those actually are scanned documents sometimes available online. (i found one for the austrohungarian army by chance once because i searched for something that was covered in the document, but i have no idea were as this is years ago)

[@ivvan497]

What's even more interesting is how in those 100 years warfare didn't change much. In fact, it didn't change essentially since like 16-17 century. That's like 200 years. If you compare napoleonic wars to 20th century which is even less time, the difference is MASSIVE. We had so much progress in the last 200 years it's insane.

[@aronmarkovits5396]

​@@ivvan497the thing is it changed about the same, but mostly in mentalities and not in used things

[@v4enthusiast541]

​@nirfz you can try Frederick the Great's On The Art of War, a manual he wrote for his generals and lieutenants to read

[@nirfz]

@@v4enthusiast541 Good suggestion! Even thought i am not the one particularly looking for the information, like the og commenter.

[@QuantumHistorian]

It's interesting to ask _"Why didn't the bayonet see widespread use earlier?"_ It's after all a fairly simple idea, recorded as early as the start of the 15th Century in Europe (and even earlier in China). The explanation, IMO, is that without firearms that can take the wind out of a charge with shot alone, turning the firearm into a poor spear (muskets with bayonets are too heavy and unwieldy to be a great melee weapon) will not help the formation survive. Muskets had to reach a level of efficiency were they could devastate cavalry pre-impact in order for the additional close-ranged power provided by the bayonet to matter.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Before bayonets became standard, soldiers equipped with firearms both in Europe & East Asia might still engage in close combat. They used swords or their pieces as bludgeons. Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 military treatises covers how arquebusiers could charge other arquebusiers with sword in hand. He recommended retaining the arquebus in the left hand to parry with while using the sword in the right hand. This approach is presumably less effective against cavalry, but a decent method for fighting hand to hand.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Not sure if this was the case in Europe. But northern Chinese soldiers used to perfer the handcannon to a musket. Because it's a mace in melee. In addition, Chinese musketeers mostly either used a retractable balde on their gun butt, a short sword, or a long sword in melee. The plug sword wasn't widely adopted amongst musketeers too. The hand cannon version was more popular, so it's a mace with a pointy end in melee.

[@2SSSR2]

One thing was not mentioned in this video about the origins of bayonet: "Pierre Borel wrote in 1655 that a kind of long-knife called a bayonette was made in Bayonne but does not give any further description." H. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons, p. 50 Citation are from wikipedia but I remember reading about this when I was younger and tried to find it after I saw it was not mentioned in the video.

[@isaactomangrief9158]

Great video as always, SandRhoman. Just to let you know that in English, if someone has the title 'sir', then they are referred to by their first name. Hence Sir John Stuart would be Sir John, not Sir Stuart. On the other hand, if he were Lord John Stuart, it would be Lord Stuart. Hope this helps!

[@WalterWhiteFootballSharing]

Surprised it took so long; 30 years war is still pike OR shot. To equip every man with a short pike and a musket seems so natural to us in hindsight. Maybe guns were expensive weapons to make by hand. Its puzzling to me how saber cavalry ever had a chance vs musketmen w bayonets. I know fleeing soldiers were massacred like Prussians after Jena-Aurstat.

[@hia5235]

ever seen the size of a war horse.

[@timzerby3312]

​@@hia5235 yah!! When in a proper formation... a horse is more scared of the pike wall than you are of it... but that's kinda hard to remember when you have what is essentially a small tank charging towards you at high speed... The results of a charge was often a contest to see which formation would break first... and if you where already engaged in fighting infantry to your front... a well timed charge would leave you both outflanked and outnumbered... in that sense the separation of pike and shot would actually be easier on training and discipline because each formation only had to focus on one job instead of two

[@Warmaker01]

It's why linear warfare had such prevalence for so long. Tight infantry formations were easy to control, but the main thing was that the infantry could be massed together in a defensive formation, bayonets ready to defend against cavalry. Because if you're spread out, you're getting run down by cavalry. Also the soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder would be better for morale and cohesion in the face of cavalry. I imagine this is even more important if you don't have a well trained, drilled unit. Only when technology and firepower had evolved so much did linear warfare go away. To the point that even the cavalry's role on the battlefield was greatly reduced and eventually disappear altogether.

[@recoil53]

Change is hard, people stick with what works. Especially true when it is their lives at stake. People were figuring out tactics and were trading out some of what was proven for some of the new thing. And they were still trying to figure out the new thing. It wasn't until the desperation of battle that somebody stuck a knife in a barrel to improvise a spear. Often it is the side with the weaker force, being more desperate, to try new tactics and technologies. After all, if you are stronger in what worked before, why risk the new thing going wrong? The blame would be tremendous. Or why even bother? It looks like a win anyways. You'll find this issue in trying to implement any new thing.

[@ToudaHell]

I recommend watching Waterloo. It showed how infantry can beat a calvary charge using the musket. But it took Wellington surprising the French with the square defensive formation, having the high ground, unfavorable ground conditions AND knowing the lay of the land better than Napolean for it to happen. I haven't seen many movies with napoleanic battle tactics but that one was the best in my opinion. They also trained hundreds of real Soviet soldiers to perform those old formations and tactics for the movie.

[@wiktorberski9272]

Really well-told story of bayonets' role on the battlefield

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Wonderful historical coverage video about bayonet and amounted on rifles...

[@jcduberry107]

In 1995 French 3 Regiment d'Infanterie de Marine charged with fixed bayonets and retake the Vrbanja bridge over the Serbians at Sarajevo.

[@zetectic7968]

Corporal Jones "They don't like it up 'em!" Given the choice I'd rather be shot than be stabbed by a bayonet.

[@zebradun7407]

Long ago in a time now past My Marine Close Combat Bayonet instructor told us this, "recruits, The Bayonet doesn't take prisoners, bayonet them until they are dead, do not stop with one thrust." The Bayonet does not take prisoners. That is why those bayoneted in combat do not show up at field hospitals as wounded and the experts believe bayonets are not effective in combat anymore.

[@cristianespinal9917]

Rah

[@MrJabbothehut]

Imagine being such an expert that you believe that an 8 inch blade wouldnt be effective.... those things are nasty.

[@lolasdm6959]

No, they examined the dead, and rarely did anyone die of the bayonet, and among the wounded, rarely did anyone have a bayonet wound, because usually one side would run before both sides fought head to head with bayonets.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@MrJabbothehut It's not 8 inch blades weren't effective. It's that everyone knows they are effective so they run from it so often that rarely was anyone actually hurt by one.

[@MrJabbothehut]

@@lolasdm6959 that's what I meant. I'm just astounded that people can so confidently say that a huge knife isnt effective.

[@jasonalmendra3823]

You can't run with a 20-foot pike. It's too dangerous. But you could run with a 6-foot musket with bayonet.

[@aronmarkovits5396]

You can run with a 20 foot pike, tough not far, neither can you run run further with a musket

[@bakters]

You mean, if you army routes they will drop all the pikes, but keep all the bayonets? Unlikely...

[@aronmarkovits5396]

@@bakters what that you will drop a stick trice your size and keep a knife on your belt? Id say it is far more probable that you keep that. But this is not what i've meant, i've meant the charge and on the charge

[@bakters]

@@aronmarkovits5396 " *i've meant the charge* " You mean that bayonets, at a run, could beat a steady pike formation? Yes, it's possible that a bunch of pikemen could possibly die laughing... I humbly suspect a few would still remain standing, and that'd be enough to stop the bayonet charge.

[@aronmarkovits5396]

@@bakters unless you take into account the fact that a line formation would fire two volleys into the pikemen, you would not be mistaken

[@cyberpunk59]

The fact that you really try to pronounce french names and words with a french accent really is an appreciated gesture 👍

[@brittakriep2938]

It Sounds a bit, that the man behind this channel is Swiss German. They mostly can also speak french.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Isn't he from Belgium? He may be Flemish but he should still be familiar with French language.

[@MrVlad12340]

«Пуля - дура, штык - молодец.» «Bullet - a fool, bayonet - a fine lad.» Russian military proverb. (Roughly means that bullet is dumb and misses a lot but you cant miss when spearing someone with a bayonet.)

[@LuisAldamiz]

Makes sense. Even today that's probably true quite often although the fast fire of automatic guns means that of many dumb bullets one may well kill you if you don't take cover fast.

[@flindude2681]

Just looking at how long rifle is, it seems pretty easy and natural idea to put a sharp point on it and have a spear.

[@taistelusammakko5088]

Altough it makes for a very short spear

[@recoil53]

@@taistelusammakko5088 It got the job done, which is the only criteria. It kept the cavalry away and in the end regulated them to specialty roles.

[@mirektobiasz7420]

Before introduction of bayonnets roughly 2/3 of musketeer regiment were pikemen.

[@Chris-zr1hw]

The british did actually do a bayonet charge in 2004 and killed 34 Iraqi gunmen

[@Titus_Vespasianus]

Truly, I didn't know that...wow...where was this at???

[@kevinqing6620]

Some Brits did a bayonet charge in Afghanistan once too

[@kevinqing6620]

The British did a successful bayonet charge in Afghanistan at least once too, and apparently gained a lot of favor with the locals who witnessed it.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

And you know it's true because of the exactly 0 seconds of recorded footage about it.

[@morpheusgreene2704]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me there is also zero footage of the battle of waterloo

[@raysjb]

I was recently reading about the Scot Grey's heavy cavalry charge at Waterloo. One of them mentioned how the infantry's bayonets were useless against them, that they couldn't reach far enough to do any damage to the cavalry, who just cut them down. This was when the infantry wasn't in formation nor a square. It made me wonder if the bayonet was ever really conceived as an anti-cavalry weapon.

[@Styphon]

Do not polish your bayonet with your shirt unless you want a ventilated abdomen

[@Greystar2426]

entertaining video, thank you!

[@Derna1804]

7:37 We were still training with bayonets when I joined the U.S. Army, if you asked me whether I'd rather have the bayonet in hand to hand combat, a knife or a branch ... I think I'd rather have the bayonet, thank you very much.

[@madkoala2130]

Unfortunately, new SiG rifle has no bayonet lug😥.

[@Derna1804]

@@madkoala2130 The idea nowadays is that you can also shoot someone who is right in front of you. The M4 was a serious accuracy downgrade from the M16A2 as well, but in terms of actual operations, the reality is that the rifle is mostly used either as a defensive or close range weapon in combat. It's there either to defend the machine guns or go where the machine guns are too cumbersome. If everyone could carry a machine gun, then everyone would. I always carried my ka-bar with me anyhow.

[@centurion2275]

We definitely don't do that now, sadly. We did some pugils but no technique was taught, it was just an excuse for drill sgt to wallop on us.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

@@centurion2275 I really don't get what is the main benefit of this kind of training. Hardening? increasing confidence? Otherwise, I don't see much point.

[@Derna1804]

@@kamilszadkowski8864 There's two different cushions on the stick with different colors. One represents the bayonet, one the butt of the rifle. If the training is supervised correctly, the idea is to practice bayonet fighting. And while it's mostly just looked at as an aggression building exercise, with the bayonet aspect often ignored, the real secret is that it's just morale boosting. Soldiers get a break from often dreary training to do something fun. That said, it is annoying when you immediately stab the other guy in the face but the match gets called on wild flailing points.

[@IsaacRaiCastillo]

For me, it would be interesting to know more about how the combat formations inherited from the 30 Years' War were adapted in Europe, after the incipient adoption of bayonets by all the powers of the time, which would be between the 1670's. until the year 1703 (which is when the pikes were completely abandoned); I know of interesting cases such as that of the French in their military ordinances in 1680, when it was indicated that there should be three groups of pikes (the largest in the middle and two smaller ones close to the flanks) along the rectangular formation of each Battalion (approximately 700 men), while the rest were musketeers and grenadiers (practically 80%), so that when making defensive squares against cavalry, they could have time to cover the muskets, who would support them with the bayonet attached ( gaining the density that the pikes could no longer offer due to their small number). The case of the Spanish at that same time in 1680 (where the Tercios had already been reduced to a size similar to that of battalions of approximately 400 soldiers), they simplified by having all the pikemen in the middle of each rectangular formation, while musketeers with bayonets on each flank (60% of the unit); I would like to know what it was like in the other kingdoms. Here I put a diagram of what the two cases that I know of looked like, being the pikemen (P) and the muskets (s): French (700 soldiers): sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss Spanish (400 soldiers): ssssssPPPPPssssss ssssssPPPPPssssss ssssssPPPPPssssss